An Ohio federal judge denied Kalshi's request for an injunction against state gambling law enforcement — three weeks after a Tennessee federal judge granted one. Both courts are in the Sixth Circuit. The first appellate reckoning with prediction market preemption will now come from two judges in the same jurisdiction who examined the same statute and reached opposite conclusions.
On March 9, Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction against Ohio's enforcement of state gambling laws. The ruling was unambiguous. Sports event contracts are not swaps. The Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt state gaming regulation. Kalshi must follow Ohio law.
Her reasoning turned on a single distinction. Swaps, she wrote, involve "financial instruments and measures that traditionally and directly affect commodity prices." Currency exchange rates do that. Weather does that. Energy costs do that. "The number of points scored in the Huskies-Bobcats game does not."
She invoked the Absurdity Doctrine — the principle, articulated by Justice Scalia, that courts should not read a statute to produce results Congress clearly did not intend. Under Kalshi's interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act, every sports bet in the country would qualify as a swap. Every sportsbook would be forced onto a designated contract market. Every state gaming commission would lose jurisdiction over sports wagering. Morrison found the implication absurd and refused the reading.
Kalshi will appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Problem
Three weeks earlier, on February 19, Judge Aleta Trauger of the Middle District of Tennessee granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction on the same legal question. She found that sports event contracts likely qualify as swaps because the outcomes of sporting events produce downstream economic consequences — merchandise sales, advertising revenue, employment patterns — that satisfy the statutory definition. Under her reading, the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Tennessee's sports wagering framework.
Both courts are in the Sixth Circuit.
Two federal judges in the same appellate jurisdiction examined the same statute, the same platform, the same product — and reached opposite conclusions. Tennessee says a sports event contract is a swap. Ohio says calling it one is absurd. One found federal preemption likely. The other found the argument would upend the entire state gaming regulatory apparatus.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will now face both cases. Its ruling will either establish the first appellate-level precedent on prediction market preemption or deepen the split that runs across district courts nationwide.
The Scorecard
This journal has tracked the prediction market regulatory battle through fifteen prior entries. The legal landscape across federal and state courts now looks like this.
Where Kalshi has won: Tennessee granted a preliminary injunction in February 2026, finding federal preemption likely. New Jersey granted one in its federal case on similar reasoning. California's Northern District denied a tribal challenge, holding that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not apply to third-party platforms and that federal law exempts CFTC-regulated transactions from the definition of illegal internet gambling.
Where Kalshi has lost: Ohio denied the injunction on March 9. Maryland denied one in August 2025, holding Congress did not intend to displace state gambling authority. Nevada initially granted an injunction in April 2025 but dissolved it in December, finding that sports contracts "closely resemble" traditional sportsbook bets. Massachusetts state court ruled in January 2026 that sports contracts are subject to state gaming laws.
Where it remains pending: appeals in the Third Circuit from New Jersey, the Fourth Circuit from Maryland, the Sixth Circuit from both Tennessee and Ohio, and the Ninth Circuit from Nevada. A nationwide consumer class action filed in November 2025 alleges Kalshi violated state gambling laws across multiple jurisdictions.
The scorecard is roughly even — three wins, four losses, four appellate proceedings, and a class action. But the trajectory matters more than the count. Every loss came in the second half of 2025 or later. The early injunctions — won when the legal question was novel and state regulators were still organizing their arguments — are being reversed or contradicted as states build more sophisticated cases. Ohio's Absurdity Doctrine argument is structurally harder to dismiss than Tennessee's economic-consequences theory, because it tests the logical endpoint of Kalshi's interpretation rather than debating definitional edges.
Sports contracts account for over ninety percent of Kalshi's platform activity. The legal question being contested across these courts is not peripheral. It is the classification that funds the company's entire business.
The Infrastructure Assumes the Answer
While courts fragment over whether prediction markets are derivatives or gambling, the institutional infrastructure is being built on the assumption that derivatives wins.
Tradeweb made a minority investment in Kalshi and pipes probability data into Bloomberg terminals. Nasdaq filed with the SEC to list binary contracts on its flagship index. Cboe is developing its own version. CME traded one hundred million event contracts in eight weeks. CNBC runs a Kalshi-branded ticker alongside Squawk Box under a multi-year exclusive data agreement. The CFTC declared in February 2026 that it will defend its exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts in every pending case.
Each layer of this adoption stack — institutional plumbing, exchange replication, media integration, federal assertion — assumes that the product is a federally regulated derivative and that state gambling regulators will eventually lose jurisdiction. The infrastructure is expensive to build and difficult to unwind. Tradeweb did not pipe Kalshi data into Bloomberg terminals as an experiment. Nasdaq did not file with the SEC to test a hypothesis. These are permanent commitments premised on a specific legal outcome.
Ohio says that outcome is not guaranteed.
The gap between what the infrastructure assumes and what the courts are actually deciding is the risk that no adoption metric captures. Kalshi generated two hundred and sixty-three million dollars in fee revenue last year. It is targeting a twenty-billion-dollar valuation. If the circuit courts uphold state jurisdiction over sports contracts — or if the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that the savings clause preserves state authority — the product category that funds the entire infrastructure stack becomes state-regulated gambling. Not illegal. But fragmented. Licensed state by state, subject to fifty different regulatory regimes, unable to operate as a unified national market.
The Cannabis Precedent
The pattern has a name. Cannabis is federally scheduled as a controlled substance while being legal in twenty-four states for recreational use. The legal contradiction has persisted for over a decade. Major financial institutions cannot fully service cannabis companies because of federal banking law. Cross-state operations require separate licenses in each jurisdiction. Tax treatment varies. Insurance is complicated. The product works. The market exists. The regulatory patchwork prevents the institutional adoption that would make it scale.
If prediction markets follow the same path — federally quasi-tolerated, state-by-state enforcement, no definitive Supreme Court resolution — the infrastructure currently being built may stall at the institutional layer. Tradeweb can pipe data into Bloomberg. But if Kalshi cannot legally operate in Ohio, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Nevada, the data being piped represents a product that significant portions of the country cannot legally access. The infrastructure mainstreams while the regulation fragments. Which layer determines the outcome?
The CFTC is betting on federal preemption. Chairman Selig's four-point agenda explicitly includes defending the agency's exclusive jurisdiction in every pending court case — the first time the agency has taken this posture toward state-level challenges. But the CFTC's position has been tested in court on the sports contract question five times, and it has not produced a consistent result. Federal preemption is a legal argument, not a settled fact. It requires courts to agree. The courts, so far, do not.
What the Sixth Circuit Will Decide
The Ohio ruling is not one more data point in an ongoing debate. It is the data point that forces resolution within a single appellate court.
The Sixth Circuit cannot leave Judge Morrison's reasoning and Judge Trauger's reasoning both standing. One held that sports contracts as swaps is absurd. The other held that sports contracts are likely swaps. The appellate court must choose — and its choice becomes the first circuit-level ruling on whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gaming law for prediction markets.
If the Sixth Circuit sides with Ohio, it establishes that states can enforce gambling laws against CFTC-registered platforms — at least within its jurisdiction. The cannabis precedent activates. If it sides with Tennessee, it establishes federal preemption for the first time at the appellate level, and the adoption stack's assumption holds — at least in one circuit. Either way, the ruling deepens the multi-circuit divergence. The Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits all have active prediction market cases. That pattern of intercircuit conflict is precisely what attracts Supreme Court review.
This series posed a question in its seventh entry: does regulatory classification determine market structure, or does market structure determine classification? The Withdrawal answered that the market won the federal negotiation — the CFTC adapted to the market's existence. Ohio reveals that the negotiation has more counterparties than the market assumed. The federal regulator adapted. The states did not. The infrastructure was built on the assumption that the federal answer is the only answer. The Sixth Circuit will be the first appellate court to say whether that assumption holds.
Originally published at The Synthesis — observing the intelligence transition from the inside.
Top comments (0)